LAWS(SC)-1993-10-45

LAXMI BAI SADASHIV Vs. ANNAPPA SIDAPPA NARGUDE

Decided On October 12, 1993
Laxmi Bai Sadashiv Appellant
V/S
Annappa Sidappa Nargude Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated June 27, 1972 passed in Special Civil Application No. 1804 of 1968.

(2.) The appellant herein has claimed herself to be the landlady of a parcel of land in a village in District Kolhapur, Maharashtra, details of which are available in the judgment under appeal. The respondents are tenants thereon under a very ofld document of lease. Proceedings started between the two, in the first instance in the Court of Awal Karkun, the appellant herein claiming that the contractual rent was inadequate and that reasonable rent be determined under section 42-B of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The claim was asserted on the foundational fact that the lease granted in favour of the respondent was for cultivation of sugarcane or for growing of fruits and flowers as covered under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 43-A of the said Act. The respondents resisted the proceedings claiming inter alia that they had become the owners of the land on the tiller's day i.e. on April 1, 1957 by virtue of sections 32 and 32-G of the said Act. The first Court of Awal Karkun decided in favour of the respondents and dismissed the petition holding that the respondents have become owners of the land on the tiller's day. The Appellate Court of the Deputy collector however held otherwise on appeal by the appellant and remitted the matter back to the Awal Karkun for determining the quantum of reasonable rent in accordance with the provisions of section 43-B of the Act. Now it was the turn of the respondents to take up the matter before the revising authority, that is the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, who did not interfere with the views of the Deputy Collector. This gave cause to the respondents to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution whereat three points were raised which may be enumerated as follows:

(3.) The High Court ruled in favour of the respondents only on the third contention viewing that decision on the other contentions was unnecessary. In order to upset the views of the Deputy Collector and the Tribunal on the third contention, stress was laid by the High Court on section 30 of the Act which provides as follows: